King, J.

1. The question raised in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit promissory note was executed on the 12th June, 1923. There was an acknowledgment on the 22nd June, 1923 and a second acknowledgment on the 27th June, 1926. On that date the Court in which the suit should have been filed was closed. It was closed on the 22nd June and re-opened on the 28th June, 1926. The suit was filed on the 6th August, 1929. Both the Courts below have held that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. The argument in appeal is that Section 19 which is the section of the Limitation Act which has to be applied in this case, deals with the period prescribed by the Act as a whole for the filing of a suit and that when the Act as a whole is read, that period will be seen to expire not on the 22nd June, 1926, but only on the 28th June, 1926, when the Court re-opened and therefore three years can be calculated afresh from the 28th June, 1926. In other words, to put the argument very succinctly, it is this, that under Section 19 the period prescribed is to be calculated not only from all the articles and other sections of the Limitation Act but also by including the extension which is